From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Oct 31 7: 8:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from brain.mics.net (brain.mics.net [209.41.216.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F7137B403; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 07:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by brain.mics.net (Postfix, from userid 150) id A6AFF17BE7; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brain.mics.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032BE15D08; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:08:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:08:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Scheidt To: Terry Lambert Cc: Nate Williams , John Baldwin , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: time_t not to change size on x86 In-Reply-To: <3BDFB74D.4EBD3145@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > Nate Williams wrote: > > > > You don't *have* to use volatile in C, and the addition of the volatile > > keyword came out of C++ work. We can blame it on C++. (I have a friend > > on the C++ standards committee, and we love to give him grief about what > > a joke the language is.) > > Actually, there are situations where you _must_ use volatile > to prevent register optimization of variables. > That's a compiler problem, not a language feature. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message